Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be re-written as following:
a tool for forming sheet metal blanks provided with a material layer on one or both sides, said tool comprising: a cutting bell rigidly coupled to an upper forming punch and a drawing cushion coupled to a hold-down device,
the upper forming punch and a lower forming punch being movable relative to one another to close the tool;
a first gap being present between the cutting bell and the hold-down device when the tool is closed; and
the lower forming punch is capable to be moved relative to a lower pressure piece,
the lower forming punch having an end stop for stop the movement of the lower pressure piece,
wherein the sheet metal blank is clamped between the upper forming punch and the lower pressure piece, and during a relative movement between the lower forming punch and the lower pressure piece, the upper forming punch and the lower pressure piece remain in their position relative to one another clamping the sheet metal blank.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “wherein the sheet metal blank can be clamped between” should be changed to “wherein the sheet metal blank is clamped between”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “a drawing cushion” should be changed to “the drawing cushion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 6-8 the phrase “an end stop formed by the lower forming punch for a lower pressure piece that can be moved relative to it” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “that can be moved relative to it”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “an end stop formed by the lower forming punch for a lower pressure piece that can be moved relative to it” as “the lower forming punch is capable to be moved relative to a lower pressure piece, the lower forming punch having an end stop for stop the movement of the lower pressure piece”.
Claims 2-12 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the width" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second gap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, in line 3 the phrase “the second gap” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the second gap”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted claim 4 is depended form claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jensen (US4382737A).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen discloses a tool for forming sheet metal blanks provided with a material layer on one or both sides (abstract, fig.22B and col.12 line 18-col.13; the device is capable to process sheet metal blanks provided with a material layer on one or both sides), said tool: comprising
a cutting bell (fig.22B: (278)) which is rigidly coupled to an upper forming punch (fig.22B: (280)) and a drawing cushion (fig.22B: (294)) which is coupled to a hold-down device (fig.22B: (284)), the upper forming punch and a lower forming punch (fig.22B: (290)) being movable relative to one another to close the tool;
a first gap being present between the cutting bell and the hold-down device when the tool is closed (fig.22B: the gap between elements (278) and (284)); and
an end stop formed by the lower forming punch for a lower pressure piece (fig.22B: (288)) that can be moved relative to it (fig.22B: the element (288) is fixedly relative to the element (290)), that the sheet metal blank can be clamped between the upper forming punch and the lower pressure piece, and that during a relative movement between the lower forming punch and the lower pressure piece, the upper forming punch and the lower pressure piece remain in their position relative to one another clamping the sheet metal blank.
Regarding claim 2, Jensen discloses wherein the lower forming punch (fig.22B: (290)) comprises a pocket-shaped recess in which the lower pressure piece (fig.22B: (288)) is accommodated.
Regarding claim 3, Jensen discloses wherein the sheet metal blank can be clamped between the upper forming punch and the lower pressure piece in such a way that a second gap S2 is formed between the sheet metal blank and the cutting bell (fig.22B: the gap between elements (278) and blank).
Regarding claim 4, Jensen discloses wherein the width of the first gap S is the sum of the thickness D of the sheet metal blank and the width of the second gap S2 (fig.22B).
Regarding claim 7, Jensen discloses wherein the drawing cushion (fig.22B: (294)) is rigidly coupled to the hold-down device (fig.22B: (284)) and the lower pressure piece (fig.22B: (288)).
Regarding claim 8, Jensen discloses wherein the hold-down device (fig.22B: (284)) is connected to a drawing cushion (fig.22B: (294)) via at least one drawing pin.
Regarding claim 9, Jensen discloses wherein the lower pressure piece (fig.22B: (288)) is connected to the drawing cushion (fig.22B: (294)) via at least one drawing pin.
Regarding claim 10, Jensen discloses further comprising an ejector (fig.22B: (292)) is provided for ejecting the formed sheet.
Regarding claim 11, Jensen discloses wherein the ejector (fig.22B: (292)) and the drawing cushion (fig.22B: (294)) are subjected to a permanent force.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US4382737A).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 12; Jensen does not disclose wherein the width is up to 200% greater than the thickness; wherein the width is 0.1 mm greater than the thickness; and wherein the width (W) is 10-50% greater than the thickness.
However, choosing the relative dimensions of the parts of the tool and the blank is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the tool and specific requirements of the process as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the relative dimensions of the parts of the tool and the blank as desired, including wherein the width is up to 200% greater than the thickness; wherein the width is 0.1 mm greater than the thickness; and wherein the width (W) is 10-50% greater than the in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the as desired..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725